Perhaps the NHS is the solution

Snippa tells us:

The simple facts stand out. After five years most people who have cancer in the USA are alive. In fact, overall it looks like there might be a near nine in ten chance of that.

And the associated cost is a 40% chance of bankruptcy.

That is no way to run a health service.

And yet this is the model those in office in the UK aspire to.

So, 90% 5 year survival rate.

In the NHS?

The UK government said other data showed that one-year survival rates in England, for all types of cancer, were at a record high.

One-year survival has increased from 62% in 2001 to 72.8% in 2016.

The one year NHS survival rate is nearly 20 percentage points lower than the American 5 year one?

Might we not say that the NHS isn’t the health care model to aspire to?

51 thoughts on “Perhaps the NHS is the solution”

  1. The word ‘perhaps ‘ is doing a of work here . Overall, judged by mortality rates the US has been lagging behind other comparably wealthy countries and its health services is rather poorer. As I have previously shown US health spending is a wildly exceptional ( as in high )
    Cancer, in the States, is aggressively treated diagnosed early and often . It is a litigation hot spot and so the statistics are questionable anyway
    There is a lot to admire about America, country founded on massive immigration and a single currency multi state Free Trade area .Disparaging comparisons are often unfair. For example while it does have a lot of violent gun crime compare it to Europe, not Surrey .Americans might justifiably point at the fact they have not have a full scale genocidal war on their own soil in the last 100 years or the last fifty
    So love America hate Trump and laugh at its crappy health system
    Lobe Britain hate Brexit
    Its all good

  2. All the stuff about US model is bollocks, in the sense that I’ve never met anyone in Britain (or Oz or NZ) who is remotely interested in copying it.

    As for cancer survival stats, without immense care and honesty in their presentation they are intrinsically misleading because the point isn’t to survive from diagnosis – think of that period as a line where the left end (the moment of diagnosis) is adjustable, but the right end (toes up, Charlie) might or might not be.

    If you try harder to detect cancers you are more likely to detect those that are so small or so slow-growing that you’ll die of something else first. That’s a large part of the reason that mass screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer is (in all likelihood) a bad idea.

    I’d be astonished if the NHS were particularly good on this front, and not in the least surprised if it were rather bad, but the sort of numbers flung around are not necessarily much help in understanding performance.

    In general, international comparisons are difficult to do well, even if the person doing the work is intelligent, competent, diligent, and honest.

  3. Facepainter–The sooner your lying carcass gets hit by medical malpractice the better place the world will be.

    Where is Dr Shipman when he is needed.

  4. Odd way of looking at the world if your main focuses are increasing immigration and a single currency. Stick to flipping burgers, Newmania, you have nothing to say to normal people. At least you didn’t try to parade statistics or history, or other subjects where you are in the 9th decile of world population

  5. No, Mr Ecks. He’s raised a very good point there. It’s a perfect riposte to someone banging on about US murder rates. Over a period, they don’t come close to the enthusiasm Europeans kill each other.

    As for cancer. It’s obvious. The NHS has bigger, better, healthier cancers, dunnit? Envy of the world!

  6. Heh, so high US cancer survival rates are a result of diagnosing early cases of breast or prostrate cancer that probably won’t kill you until something else does first, hence US stats aren’t that great and shouldn’t be regarded as such. Yeah, that builds my confidence in the UK system.

    The simple fact is that most Americans have access to what is probably the best medical care in the world. When I go into Stanford I certainly don’t feel that “jeez, wouldn’t I be better off in Cuba”. There are some horror stories about insurance, but that affects a small number of people. Also, medical research spending per capita is much higher than in Europe, which might have a role in higher cancer survival rates.

    The argument about American healthcare basically boils down to “the 85-90% of Americans who have ready access to the best healthcare in the world should be willing to accept something inferior so that the last 10-15% are also included without risk of financial distress”. That may be a fair and equitable argument but be honest about what it is. “The accepting less” part is what makes it so controversial.

  7. Healthcare in the evil, profit-driven US of A: doctors see you at the drop of a hat, if you’re sick you get whisked into a clean, modern hospital full of Star Trek technology and pleasant, friendly staff.

    Healthcare in the envy of the world: book a week in advance for your maximum 10 minute appointment with a GP who palpably doesn’t give a shit, if you need to go to one of our antiquated, grimy hospitals your choices are between waiting weeks or months for a letter they’ll probably forget to send out, or waiting 5 hours in A&E to see a harried junior doctor who has only slept 12 hours this week.

  8. Bloke in North Dorset

    And yet this is the model those in office in the UK aspire to.

    My standard response to anyone claiming that the Tories want to implement the US healthcare model is please provide a link to a credible source. I’ve not met anyone who can back up that claim.

  9. There is a lot to admire about America, country founded on massive immigration and a single currency multi state Free Trade area

    Nice try. The US was founded by and for the (white) people already living there; immigration was a policy, not a foundation. The US didn’t have a single currency until 1893; for more than century multiple currencies were legal tender. The country never was (and still isn’t) a multi-state free trade area. Congress has the power to regulate trade across state lines and does so remorselessly and abusively.

    In the context of this thread, Americans are not permitted to buy health insurance outside of the state in which they reside. President Trump and the Republicans are trying to change that.

  10. Dennis, Bullshit Detector

    There are few things more tiresome than listening to wogs and septics slag each others’ health systems.

    I’ve never been exposed to the NHS and it is my hope that I never will be. The same goes for most of the wogs here who defend NHS and slag the US health system. They want their NHS. They have no experience in dealing with the US system. So, lacking any concrete evidence – anecdotal or otherwise – we dive into the realm of “Nothing proves a point like using non-comparable statistics to validate your own personal prejudice”.

  11. “They want their NHS.” I’d be surprised if many people here want the NHS. The Singapore system, though, might be attractive. Or the Icelandic. Or many another advanced country’s.

  12. “President Trump and the Republicans are trying to change that.”

    I hope they fail.

    States regulate health insurance in their states. And that includes a pool to cover claims against failed companies. Good ideas. Calls for interstate sales come universally from people who know nothing of the insurance business.

    “For example while it does have a lot of violent gun crime compare it to Europe”

    Take black males killing black males out of the stats and the U.S. rate is quite low, under 2 per 100,000.

    “85-90% of Americans who have ready access to the best healthcare in the world”

    Exactly right, TD. For most Americans, American medical care is excellent.

    U.S. healthcare costs are extremely high because of government. The cost could be cut IN HALF if government stopped ‘helping.”

  13. States regulate health insurance in their states.

    Yes, as stipulated in the federal McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. Whatever the pros and cons of that, it usefully demonstrates that the US isn’t a multi-state free trade area. Newmania won’t listen, anyways.

  14. Gamecock,

    It is however, a huge inefficiency that people can’t take their insurance from one state to the other, in some cases one job to the other. It’s also a burden on trying to start a business there until you can afford to employ the minimum number of employees an insurer would be interested in. Which also means your insurance is to a large extent your boss’s choice, not yours. Again, I’m sure this is great in a big company with lots of choice, but it’s yet another barrier to entry to the upstart startup.

    I’m sure the state portability thing fine when you are young and fit and have nothing wrong. Couple of years ago, I developed a new “pre-existing condition” that’s guaranteed to cost some fairly serious dosh in the (hopefully far distant, but no one can tell) future. Were I in the US, I effectively couldn’t move state, as no new insurer will touch me. And I certainly can’t move there, for the same reason. So instead of taking a job out there I find myself staying in Europe and fly out, sometimes every week, to the same customer.

    You can see the direct and indirect market-fucking inefficiencies of that, I assume.

  15. PJF, then in the same sense the EU is also not a multi-state free trade area as each state regulates its own health insurance provision and that provision is not (other than very short term) portable across state lines.

    So the EU, which is shit, is just like the US. Which isn’t.

    Go figure.

  16. Calls for interstate sales come universally from people who know nothing of the insurance business.

    https://www.factcheck.org/2017/07/selling-insurance-across-state-lines/

    My bet is that Trump understands the insurance business pretty well. I’d also bet that he’s correct on this issue and that factcheckorg and your good self are wrong.

    Frankly, It’s amazing that it’s anything to do with the government where Americans buy their insurance from; health, motoring or whatever. Should be able to be a company in Singapore if it suits their needs.

    U.S. healthcare costs are extremely high because of government. The cost could be cut IN HALF if government stopped ‘helping.”

    Well, yes. And this in the same post where you’re calling for the retention of such “help”. \_(ツ)_/¯

  17. PJF, then in the same sense the EU is also not a multi-state free trade area…

    Absolutely. But it’s Newmania you need to that to.

    So the EU, which is shit, is just like the US. Which isn’t.

    Go figure.

    Easy peasy. The US is profoundly good with some shit aspects. The EU is profoundly shite with some good aspects.

  18. BiG – Were I in the US, I effectively couldn’t move state, as no new insurer will touch me.

    Doesn’t seem to stop Yanks moving between states tho, seems to be more mobility within the US than within the EU. I presume lots of the retirees moving to Florida and Californians moving to Texas have pre-existing conditions. So maybe they know something we don’t.

    So the EU, which is shit, is just like the US. Which isn’t.

    Well, who voted for any of the EU’s five presidents?

  19. @TD +1

    @Steve

    ….and after waiting months for an appointment, you trek to hospital for your 10:40 appointment and wait 2 hours to be seen. Meanwhile you’re paying £6 per hour to park in hospital car park

    Re: Genocidal war

    When I learned many years ago that the truth about a man-made famine in Stalin’s USSR had been suppressed with the help of Western media, I could not understand how such a thing could have happened. Now I do.

    An interesting new film, Mr Jones, dramatises this extraordinary event.

    The brave and independent Gareth Jones, and the equally courageous Malcolm Muggeridge (later to be a major figure in British broadcasting), both ventured into Ukraine and the Russian North Caucasus, and found starving men, women and children.

    When a Soviet official denied that there was starvation, Jones flung a crust of his own bread into a brimming spittoon, and immediately a haggard figure grabbed it and ate it.

    But the British-born Moscow correspondent of the New York Times, a one-legged libertine called Walter Duranty, first wrote a disgusting article under the headline ‘Russians hungry but not starving’, in which he described the brave and enterprising reports of Muggeridge and Jones as a ‘scare story’. He knew that they were, in fact, true.

    A few weeks later he lied again, writing ‘any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda’.

    At the time he did so, people in the famine regions were going mad and eating their own children.

    It now seems that the truth about the famine was seen as an obstacle to the USA’s desire to open diplomatic relations with Stalin.

    So the mass-murder had to be ignored and denied. How low we sometimes sink.

  20. “They want their NHS. They have no experience in dealing with the US system.”

    Listening to the left, you would think the only two health systems are the NHS and the US system.

    Me “do you think maybe we could reform the NHS so that it doesn’t take 6 months, 5 committees and £15,000 to change a lightbulb?

    Lefty – oh so you want a US system where children are bankrupted by the cost of an aspirin and then Trump skins them and uses the skins to make lampshades.

  21. Every statistic about medically induced bankruptcies is suspect. Many stem from a phony and wrong analysis done by Mr. Trump’s favorite American Indian, Senator E. Warren.

  22. “So maybe they know something we don’t.”

    Ah pensioners. Medicare, perchance?

    “Well, who voted for any of the EU’s five presidents?”

    The EU doesn’t have a president. I assumed you meant the commission president, but there have been 23 of them, not 5. So I have no idea what you are on about.

  23. BiGs – Could be? I dunno how being old works, but presumably the 7 or 8 million Yanks who move state every year aren’t all codgers.

    Like most people, I wouldn’t want to copy the way Yank healthcare is financed tho. Andrew C is correct.

    The EU doesn’t have a president. I assumed you meant the commission president, but there have been 23 of them, not 5. So I have no idea what you are on about.

    If only there was a word for the opposite of ingenuous, eh?

  24. Pcar – or Scotland, where the magnificent free parking system means you’ll probably spend more time circling the car park than you do being treated.

  25. bloke in spain sais:
    “US murder rates. Over a period, they don’t come close to the enthusiasm Europeans kill each other.”

    I saw an interesting chart once; in the US, blacks murder at a similar rate to Jamaicans, Hispanics similar to Mexicans, whites similar to the Dutch. There was another one for those of Asian descent. I have probably got some or all of the comparator countries wrong, but you get the point.

  26. I’ve been saying for some time now that the ‘support’ for the NHS in the UK exists largely within the political class, rather as did the support for being in the EU. Or rather the fanaticism for the NHS exists purely in the political class, as with EU memebership. Out in the real world of voters there’s an increasing amount of people who wouldn’t piss on the NHS if it was on fire (mainly because they or their loved ones have experienced its tender mercies, and the scales have dropped from their eyes) and plenty more who are ambivalent on the subject.

    There is this political mantra that the UK public ‘love the NHS’ and would die in a ditch for it. And even those in the public sphere who are on the side of not agreeing with socialised medical provision (as opposed to finance) tend go along with this line, mainly because if they go off piste they immediately get piled on by their political opponents citing this majority NHS love in as the backing for their actions.

    One day someone is going to realise that its a compete myth – there is no fanatical support for the NHS within the public at large, such fanaticism only exists within those with vested interests – the healthcare unions and those reliant on their political clout. Everyone else is at best mildly supportive, often ambivalent and increasingly actively opposed. And that there is a large seam of votes to be mined by proposing NHS reform, probably on the lines of Continental healthcare systems. An increasing number of people would accept anything other than the reality they experience within the NHS today.

    One day someone is going to stick their head above the parapet and nail their colours to real NHS reform and I’m not sure who will be more surprised – the person sticking their head up at finding so many people supporting them, or the political class at such a person getting the amount of support they will. Personally I think that the tantrum the political class will throw over any NHS reforms that gain electoral traction will make their antics over Brexit look like utterly reasonable and rational behaviour.

  27. Steve – If only there was a word for the opposite of ingenuous, eh?
    he’s in Germany, the word is Dummkopf.

    Großer –

    president of the commission
    president of the council
    president of the external action service
    president of the ECB
    president of the parliament

    (which ones did you vote for?)

  28. There’s something called the ‘external action service’?

    I should not be surprised. But still.

    Jolly story earlier today in the Groan about Yurptrashpols thrashing each other in a sack over who’s to pay now Uncle Englandsugardaddy’s wallet purports to be closed.

    I can but hope.

    The thought of Barnier next door neighbour to Mandy, Major, Miller, Grieve, Clarke, Robbins, on a Clichy banlieue, with exploding carburetors their daily alarm clocks… Well, that tickles old Lud’s fleshy parts.

  29. “Well, yes. And this in the same post where you’re calling for the retention of such “help”.”

    Because the cost problems are from the Federal government, not the state governments. I could have worded up and spelled all that out, but I assumed there would be no audience for it.

  30. So in the UK the heads of the central bank and civil service, the parliament speakers and the head of state are elected by universal suffrage? Gosh, things have changed since I left.

  31. BiG, in a democracy you should be able to vote out the holders of executive power. In the EU you can’t do that. The various non-elected posts you mention in the UK are not part of the executive. And I think you know that as well as I do.

  32. Edward Lud Said:
    ”There’s something called the ‘external action service’?””

    For increasing Lebensraum?

  33. But rhoda,

    Apparently we are all going to be jackboot nazi’d because the president of the ECB is not elected by universal suffrage.

    But that argument somehow doesn’t apply in every other place that has an unelected central bank president.

  34. Andrew C

    Spot on – and I agree (having had recourse to the US health system when I lived over there) with the characterisation of both legends of this Parish, Steve and Dennis of the standard of care available relative to the UK (UK Private Sector is fairly good I have to say), but the comparison between the two beloved of so many on the political Left is fairly easily spiked by pointing out the systems in places like Norway, Germany or Switzerland which are a far more realistic model for weaning the UK off the NHS. The very fact these NHS ‘ultras’ make specious comparison between the UK and US shows they know a middle way is possible, but their near-religious faith precludes them from admitting it…

  35. Your spat with Steve aside, BiG, the thing with appointed positions within the UK vs the EU is that they are appointed by systems that are a part of our national checks and balances, which are ultimately democratically accountable.

    Britons have no meaningful influence over EU officials that control their lives.

  36. Because the cost problems are from the Federal government, not the state governments.

    But it’s known that the various state regulations have different cost impacts. That’s part of why the Republicans want the state line limits removed – to encourage regulatory competition.

  37. Au contraire, PJF, all members of the parliament, and all members of the council (the body wot counts) are democratically elected by universal suffrage, the latter in national, not Europe-wide, elections. The commission is elected by that parliament, so really not unlike the way the US electoral college works, or the way some European national presidents are appointed.

    Now, Americans might be used to electing their local deputy librarian or head cheerleader, but the UK doesn’t take democracy that far.

  38. BiG, that’s the democracy of a pack of wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. National interest is lost in that – by design. Thankfully the people of this nation voted to leave the arrangement, and our governance may (Boris betrayal notwithstanding) come home.

  39. Yes, national interest is lost by design. In the same way Shropshire’s interest is subsumed to the national in the UK parliament, and Shrewsbury’s to Salop, and the interest of Mrs Miggins of 47 Mondeo Drive, Shrewsbury, to her town council.

    That’s demoracy for ya. As Churchill observed, the worst way of doing things, except for all the others.

  40. “You can see the direct and indirect market-fucking inefficiencies of that, I assume.”

    And surely you can see that if it is an existing condition, it isn’t fvcking insurance. IS IT?

  41. @Steve

    Re BiG – ignoramus, denier?

    [New] Royal Infirmary Edinburgh (in middle of nowhere bog*) small, high price, long queue car parks**

    * Bog – and SNP still can’t work out why basements keep flooding (search: edinburgh sick kids)

    ** Equality queue – disabled in same queue and have to hunt for space when ticket given and allowed to enter

    @Jim

    +1

    NHS (like Global Warming) is a religion – the National Holy Service, ex-Methodists flock to it

    @TMB

    If BiG’s a good German, he’ll have voted for president of the parliament Führer Ursula von der Leyen when she was MP

    @Mr Lud

    Yep

    EU bosses Shamed over spending plans by Italian MEP: ‘We don’t have enough money, stop dreaming!’
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XrtsxOVcv4

    +1 on Humour

    Some more – MEPs behaving badly
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XrtsxOVcv4

    @BiG February 17, 2020 at 2:52 pm

    In your claim that EU is democratic you omit:
    – MEPs do not decide what EU laws are
    – Commissars are not freely chosen by EU countries, EU will reject proposed Commissar if not sufficiently pro-EU & pro-EverCloser and now approved colour and sex

  42. And it’s not a demos…

    Exactly. Democratic structures are irrelevant within contrived groupings of disparate peoples. See Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, etc.

    The EU is a bollocks-on-stilts contrivance. It’s already breaking up (we’re first). It will continue to do so, either peacefully or otherwise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *